D&D 5E Bladesingers And The “Average” Game

[doctorbadwolf]

If the intent is that it is captured, what would be the objection to spelling it out?

It would be less accurate. You can wizard right in the melee, without using weapon attacks. That’s different from staying in the back field and shooting spells off from range.

 

[Salthorae]

What confuses me is the 12 votes for "dip to help make a gish build work".

Bladesinger is a Gish already. Why multiclass and sacrifice the full Wizard casting progression too? I could maybe see like Fighter 11/Bladesinger 9 for 5th level spells and Extra Attack (2), but you've wasted the Bladesinger Extra Attack at 6th doing that and also sacrificed all your other spell levels from 6th-9th to get one extra attack per round. You're also sacrificing the Int bonus to weapon attacks if you just dip. Sure it's a level ability that most won't get to, but if you're game is going to 14th, then you're missing out on what's probably at least another +5 damage on your weapon attacks.

That doesn't make sense to me.

Maybe someone out there has a build they have an example of where a 2 level dip to Bladesinger makes sense? I'm genuinely confused/curious.

For RP reasons I can see something like a Bladesinger dip, "I was training on the path but the rest of my order was slain in a sneak attack and I have no masters to take me to the next level of bladesinging mysteries....so now I'm a fighter who learns a few spells as I can (EK)" or something like that would make sense. But "to make a gish build work" doesn't make sense to me.

 

[clearstream]

It would be less accurate. You can wizard right in the melee, without using weapon attacks. That’s different from staying in the back field and shooting spells off from range.

If the poll doesn't contain the option I would choose, then it is hard to feel invested in a challenge as to the validity of what I would choose.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

If the poll doesn't contain the option I would choose, then it is hard to feel invested in a challenge as to the validity of what I would choose.

Okay.

 

[clearstream]

Okay.

Yup. It also varies by tier, which is harder to capture. In tier-1, entirely melee-focused makes a lot of sense. That changes.

 

[billd91]

I remember thinking they were too good in 2e - and one of the reasons the Complete Book of Elves was a bit overpowered.

In 5e, I'm playing one and they are defensively pretty awesome, particularly when also armed with a shield spell. But I don't play him melee focused because while his AC is excellent, his hit points are not and that limits the exposure I'm willing to give him in a straight-up fight.

As far as the whole gish thing goes - <turns on pedantic warning> why are people talking about githyanki in a discussion about elven blade singers? Because that's what a gish is - it's not a fighter/mage in general - it's a githyanki fighter/mage. Now get off my lawn!

 

[Vael]

We had a Bladesinger in the Curse of Strahd campaign. He mixed it up meleeing and spell slinging as the situation required.

 

[Salthorae]

I remember thinking they were too good in 2e - and one of the reasons the Complete Book of Elves was a bit overpowered.

In 5e, I'm playing one and they are defensively pretty awesome, particularly when also armed with a shield spell. But I don't play him melee focused because while his AC is excellent, his hit points are not and that limits the exposure I'm willing to give him in a straight-up fight.

As far as the whole gish thing goes - <turns on pedantic warning> why are people talking about githyanki in a discussion about elven blade singers? Because that's what a gish is - it's not a fighter/mage in general - it's a githyanki fighter/mage. Now get off my lawn!

<anti pedantry shields up> Oh, get off that! Gish = generic fighter/mage concept or build has been a generic usage term for decades. Does it really matter what the lore origins of the term were in 1e AD&D?

Language evolves whether correct or not. "Irregardless" is going to be a "real" word in probably 10 years because of popular usage. In the same way that "Whelm" and "Overwhelm" mean basically the same thing with "overwhelm" being a doubling down emphasis on "whelm". But while "whelm" has fallen out of popular usage or even knowledge of its meaning today, "overwhelm" is alive and well to a whelming degree. </anti pedantry off>

<Back to the lecture disgussion at hand...> I think that Bladesinger IS viable in melee and for use more defensively as a standard wizard. I have more fun using them in melee because it's different.

I also thought the 2e version was OP for what you got and the restrictions you had, which is why none of my DM's would let me play one. They agreed that it was OP

 

[cbwjm]

Looks like I've always read this thread in the app because I had no idea it was a poll. I've voted now:
Mostly Melee Unless The Front Gets Too Wild

 

[cbwjm]

<anti pedantry shields up> Oh, get off that! Gish = generic fighter/mage concept or build has been a generic usage term for decades. Does it really matter what the lore origins of the term were in 1e AD&D?

Language evolves whether correct or not. "Irregardless" is going to be a "real" word in probably 10 years because of popular usage. In the same way that "Whelm" and "Overwhelm" mean basically the same thing with "overwhelm" being a doubling down emphasis on "whelm". But while "whelm" has fallen out of popular usage or even knowledge of its meaning today, "overwhelm" is alive and well to a whelming degree. </anti pedantry off>

<Back to the lecture disgussion at hand...> I think that Bladesinger IS viable in melee and for use more defensively as a standard wizard. I have more fun using them in melee because it's different.

I also thought the 2e version was OP for what you got and the restrictions you had, which is why none of my DM's would let me play one. They agreed that it was OP

Irregardless is a real word now, though a lot of people hate it.